Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the update is public and will be sent to subscribers unless notify_subscribers is false. This adds real context about visibility and side effects that the annotations alone do not convey, although it does not cover all possible outcomes like incident reopening.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important public-notification behavior is stated immediately after.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description, combined with a fully documented schema and annotations, provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It clarifies the public nature and subscriber notification default, though it does not describe the response format or any additional side effects beyond what the schema already covers.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter. The description adds little beyond the schema—it repeats the status enum and the notify_subscribers effect—but it does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('update on a status page incident') and enumerates the valid status values, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like edit_status_page_incident_update or resolve_status_page_incident based on the action word and resource scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool—when posting a new update to an incident—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as edit_status_page_incident_update. The notification behavior is mentioned, but exclusions and sibling differentiation are left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.